Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19, 21 have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/12/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. On 2/17/26, Applicant amended the claims. Applicant’s Remarks address these amended claims. See the new rejection with the new primary art of Stafira that addresses these amended claims and Remarks.
In regards to 101, the current 101 is still found to apply. The additional elements are considered generic. The identifier, interactions, and location information are considered generic. No technical or precise features for these are specified in the claims. The location identifying is considered generic as No technical or precise features for how this occurs are actually claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Independent Claims 1, 10, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are in a statutory category of invention. However, the claims recite implementing out-of-home (OOH) advertising based on a proximate user device, including: including actionable content in a content stream displayed, the actionable content customized to a specific location; receiving an indication of interacting with the actionable content, the indication including: an identifier and location information indicating a location of the user device; and content identifying the specific location of the OOH advertising screen; utilizing the location of the user device to identify an indication to determine the OOH advertising screen is proximate to a location of the user device; negotiating an advertisement to display based on the identifier; and displaying the advertisement. The claims also state bidding and custom actionable content. This is considered in the Abstract Idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity - advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The additional elements are considered the user device including a portable computing device, a content streaming service, the OOH advertising screen, metadata embedded, actionable content. The identifier, interactions, and location information are considered generic. No technical or precise features for these are specified in the claims. The location identifying is considered generic as No technical or precise features for how this occurs are actually claimed11. These are considered generic. The generically recited computer elements do not add a practical application or meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations only perform well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Also, the additional hardware elements are: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions. Viewed separately or as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim does not provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea, in that there is no improvement to another technology or technical field, no improvement to the functioning of a computer, no application with, or by use of a particular machine, no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, no specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routing and conventional in the field, no unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, 17-19, 21 are not considered directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. The GPS in claim 8 is considered generic. No other additional elements beyond the generic are found in the dependent claims. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful description for the claimed invention, these elements do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not more than the abstract concepts identified in the claimed invention. Hence, these dependent claims are also rejected under 101.
Please see the 35 USC 101 section at the Examination Guidance and Training Materials page on the USPTO website.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stafira (20150106395).
Claim 1. Stafira discloses a method comprising:
implementing a system to negotiate out-of-home (OOH) advertising based on a proximate user device, including:
including actionable content in a content stream displayed at an OOH advertising screen (see QR code or URL and content/advertisement at [25, 26]; see billboard and advertising at [36]), the actionable content customized to a specific location of the OOH advertising screen (“[38]… For example, additional collected object metadata could be location, sponsor, content, meaning or other information descriptive of the source input and/or processing result of the source input.”; note the source input or original content is correlated to its location at [43]);
receiving, at a content streaming service, an indication of a user device interacting with the actionable content, the indication including ( see user source input is received at [43]):
an identifier of the user device, the user device including a portable computing device (see user and source metadata is identified at [43]; see mobile/portable device at [36]); and
metadata embedded in the actionable content identifying the specific location of the OOH advertising screen (see metadata and location at [36, 38, 43]);
utilizing the indication to determine the OOH advertising screen is proximate to a location of the user device (“screen near to location of the user” at [42]);
negotiating, via the content streaming service, an advertisement to display at the OOH advertising screen based on the identifier ([43]; see particular ad selection at [75] or [43]); and
displaying the advertisement at the OOH advertising screen (see message content presented to user at [43]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-4, 10-12, 14-16, 17, 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stafira (20150106395) in view of Clyne (20110035288).
Claim 10. See the rejection of claim 1 above. In further regards to independent claim 10, Stafira does not explicitly disclose negotiate an advertisement to display at the OOH advertising screen based on providing the identifier to an advertisement bidding platform. However, Stafira discloses the providing particular advertising for a particular user features above. And, Clyne discloses auctions on user info that make user profiles [140, 152, 172, 203] and further discloses auctions and targeting specific user devices because of the auction [146, 148]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Clyne’s auctions and targeting specific user devices associated with auctions to Stafira’s providing particular advertising for a particular user. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better provide relevant content/advertising.
Claim 16. See the rejection of claim 1 above. Examiner notes that based on Applicant Spec at [20], MAID is interpreted as an identifier for a device and it can be fully or partly anonymous or protect PII. In further regards to independent claim 16, Stafira does not explicitly disclose a mobile advertising identifier (MAID) of the user device, the user device including a portable computing device,...negotiating an ad to display based on the MAID. However, Stafira discloses the providing particular advertising for a particular user features above (see above) and also ads of relevance based on the same or similar users [76]. And, Clyne discloses identifiers for the user/user device that protect PII [78] and also discloses auctions on user info that make user profiles [140, 152, 172, 203] and further discloses auctions and targeting specific user devices because of the auction [146, 148]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Clyne’s identifiers and protecting PII and auctions and targeting specific user devices associated with auctions to Stafira’s providing particular advertising for a particular user. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better protect user privacy and also provide relevant content/advertising.
Claim 2, 11. Examiner notes that based on Applicant Spec at [20], MAID is interpreted as an identifier for a device and it can be fully or partly anonymous or protect PII. In further regards to independent claim 16, Stafira does not explicitly disclose method of claim 1 further comprising: the identifier includes a mobile advertising identifier (MAID) for the user device. However, Clyne discloses identifiers for the user/user device that protect PII [78]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Clyne’s identifiers and protecting PII to Stafira’s providing particular advertising for a particular user. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better protect user privacy and also provide relevant content/advertising.
Claim 3. The prior art further renders obvious the method of claim 2 further comprising: maintaining, at the content streaming service, a user data profile for the user device including the identifier (see Stafira and profile at [50], see identifier of combination of prior art above and the motivation for the using the identifier is same as already provided).
Claim 4. Stafira does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 3 further comprising: negotiating the advertisement includes providing the identifier to an advertisement bidding platform; and receiving, at the content streaming service, a winning advertisement bid based on the identifier. However, Stafira discloses the providing particular advertising for a particular user features above (see above) and also ads of relevance based on the same or similar users [76]. And, Clyne discloses identifiers for the user/user device that protect PII [78] and also discloses auctions on user info that make user profiles [140, 152, 172, 203] and further discloses auctions and targeting specific user devices because of the auction [146, 148]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Clyne’s identifiers and protecting PII and auctions and targeting specific user devices associated with auctions to Stafira’s providing particular advertising for a particular user. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better protect user privacy and also provide relevant content/advertising.
Claim 12, 17. The prior art further renders obvious the system of claim 10 further configured to: receive a winning advertisement bid based on the identifier (see Clyne and winning bid and providing offers to particular users at [139], and note identifier in combination above, and the motivation is the same as already provided).
Claims 14, 19. Stafira does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 10 further comprising: receiving the location information as global positioning system (GPS) data. However, Maher discloses using GPS for user or user environment info [46]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Maher’s GPS info related to users to Stafira user info and providing ads. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better target.
Claim 15. Stafira further discloses method of claim 10 further comprising: including the actionable content as a digital link displayed in the content stream, the digital link providing the metadata to the user device when the user device interacts with the digital link at the OOH advertising screen (see metadata at [36], note URL at [5, 61, 90]); and determining the OOH advertising screen is proximate to the location of the user device based on the user device needing to be situated at the OOH advertising screen to interact with the digital link (see near at “[42]… or on an image or video screen near to the location of the user”).
Claim 21. Stafira further discloses the memory device of claim 16 storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform the method further comprising: identifying the OOH advertising screen proximate to the location of the user device (“screen near to location of the user” at [42]).
Claims 5-9, 13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stafira (20150106395) in view of Clyne (20110035288) in view of Maher (20100293049).
Claim 5. Stafira does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 4 further comprising: updating the user data profile with a bid value based on the winning advertisement bid. However, Maher discloses advertising to a kiosk [48] and correlating profile information with winning bids [91]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Maher’s correlating profiles and winning bids to Stafira updating profiles and providing ads. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better profile and better target.
Claim 6. Stafira further discloses the method of claim 5 further comprising: receiving, at the content streaming service, a plurality of identifiers corresponding to a plurality of user devices proximate to the OOH advertising screen; and selecting a first identifier from the plurality of identifiers for negotiating the advertisement ([66]).
Claim 7. Stafira does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 6 further comprising: selecting the first identifier based on the bid value, from a prior winning advertisement bid, in the user data profile for a corresponding user device. However, Maher further discloses selecting particular users to target and particular bids for them based on prior winning ad bid history and correlations with particular users [91- 93]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Maher’s correlating profiles and winning bids to Stafira updating profiles and providing ads. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better profile and better target.
Claim 8. Stafira does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 7 further comprising: receiving the location information as global positioning system (GPS) data. However, Maher discloses using GPS for user or user environment info [46]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Maher’s GPS info related to users to Stafira user info and providing ads. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better target.
Claim 9. Stafira further discloses method of claim 7 further comprising: including the actionable content as a digital link displayed in the content stream, the digital link providing the metadata to the user device when the user device interacts with the digital link at the OOH advertising screen (see metadata at [36], note URL at [5, 61, 90]); and determining the OOH advertising screen is proximate to the location of the user device based on the user device needing to be situated at the OOH advertising screen to interact with the digital link (see near at “[42]… or on an image or video screen near to the location of the user”).
Claims 13, 18. The prior art further discloses the system of claim 12 further configured to: maintain a user data profile for the user device including the identifier (see Stafira and profile at [50]; see identifier citations above and the motivation is the same). Stafira does not explicitly disclose update a bid value history for the user data profile based on the winning advertisement bid; and select a first identifier for negotiating the advertisement, from a plurality of identifiers corresponding to a plurality of user devices proximate to the OOH advertising screen, based on the bid value history in the user data profile. However, Maher discloses advertising to a kiosk [48] and correlating profile information with winning bids [91]. Maher discloses advertising to a kiosk [48] and correlating profile information with winning bids [91] and also discloses bid values and user profiles [90, 91]. Maher further discloses selecting particular users to target and particular bids for them based on prior winning ad bid history and correlations with particular users [91- 93]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Maher’s correlating profiles and winning bids to Stafira updating profiles and providing ads. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better profile and better target.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Aaa) Note Spatschek in 12/18/25 action
Aab) Note these for billboard/kiosk and identifying location based on a response: Stafira [0040]; Anschutz [54] [62]; Beddow [0098]; Cleveland [231]; Noonan [28] [33]; Mello ad location and query is related to particular ad [73];
aa) these discloses mobile device location and then kiosks in the vicinity: Ackerman discloses ads at a kiosk [154] and determining mobile device location and then determining kiosks proximate to the mobile device ([130, 135, 50, 100]); Velder [121, 124], Ong [58, 63]; and also Williams
[0056], Snider claim 4., Maghoul claim 19, [0017], Bordel[148]… , Lowe [0040] , Flake [47], Seals [104]…, Williams kiosk in vicinity or vice versa [38];
A) Markey discloses storing winning bid and user profile [132] and Simmons discloses won/lost bid and user profile [93];
b) Clyne discloses location info from interaction and customization, Erdmann location info from interaction and customization, Rosenthal customized ad.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTHUR DURAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 7-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARTHUR DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621 3/12/26
Prosecution Insights